Obviously I've hit a nerve, but this is too important to drop.
I just reread the W3C mission statement, the RAND proposal
and feedback, Eric Raymond's posting, and previous postings
to the group.
I just don't get it. The W3C was founded to promote open standards
in an open environment. Nothing that I've seen so far indicates to me
that either the W3C nor the VoiceXML group are on the right track
as far as IP is concerned.
The one point I want to make is that Eric Raymond never said that
IP should simply be given away. What he said was that for open source
implementations (by the way the W3C charter calls specifically for
reference or open source implementations of all standards) there should
not be a royality, RAND does not address this issue. It is open source that
has contributed to the overall success of the internet, how is it in
anyone's
best interest to inhibit future open source contributions?
To your point about companies working it out, I do not believe this
appropriate. The W3C is about building concensus and common standards
to build the foundations of the internet. Reading the W3C charter this is
clear.
It is up to the W3C to make its requirements clear and then for companies to
decide to participate or not. Companies already see it in their interest to
contibute in various ways, including employee's time, money, and other,
why would contribution of IP be different? If the goal is to build a
community for the good of all, to create a larger over all and stable
market,
why wouldn't it be in the interest of the companies to contribute? Is it
better to own 40% of 100 million dollar market or 10% of a 100 billion
dollar market? That is the power of the internet, that is the return for
building
open standards, of contributing to its growth, to the advancement of the
state
of the art. If a company is more concerned about protecting IP, then they
should not be contributing. Doesn't seem to be much middle ground, either
individual companies are on board or not, they either understand the
benefits
of participation and contribution or not.
I am advocating in favor of VoiceXML. I am advocating that the W3C take
a leadership position, adhere to their stated policy of adhereing to public
opinion (which is what has made them successful up until now) and finish
this debate by making their intensions clear, clearing up any confusion, and
moving on.
I appreciate the time I've taken on this group, I'll resist the urge to
continue
to post on this topic.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Eisenzopf" <eisen@ferrumgroup.com>
To: "Brett Serkez, Techie" <techie@serkez.net>; <eburger@snowshore.com>;
<vxi-discuss@metronomicon.com>; <www-voice@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: re[2]: The Open Source Initiative OSI letter of comment on W3C's
proposed RAND policy.
> This was also an issue with VoiceXML 1. At least the W3C is dealing with
the issue. Personally, I'd be very surprised if the corporate contributors
would be willing to hand over their IP, whose development came at a cost in
$$$ and cents unless they could be certain that doing so would present a
more profitable return in the future. Remember, corporations were formed to
make money and they have a responsibility to their stockholders to guard the
corporation's interests. Until all parties come to the conclusion that a
free grant of license of their IP is the right business decision, we won't
see things budge. If the W3C requires contributors to grant free license to
any IP that might be contributed, then future open innovation could suffer
as commercial entities pull out of the W3C and form their own groups and
proprietary standards. Of course, what most of us want is free access to any
and all IP that is associated with any specification or standard that we
use, but unfortunat!
> !
> !
> ely, this idea does not currently align with how corporations deal with
these matters. It seems to me that the solution to this problem is up to the
business and legal departments of each of the representative companies to
resolve internally and with each other so that no one feels as though
they're losing something of value or have lost something to a potential
competitor. I hope that the W3C, its members, and the development community
can work out an arrangement that will protect everyone's interests and that
it can be done without knee jerk rhetoric that provides criticism without
recommendations for resolving the problem. I'm also happy that the W3C is
dealing with this issue now rather than later. While Eric Raymond's proposed
change is well though out, it does fly in the face of commercial interest
and probably won't be tolerating in a time when corporations control the
Internet instead of universities and research institutions.